Object Management Group




старонка1/120
Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер2.29 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   120

Object Management Group

Final FTF Report




FTF Report
of the
UML 2.0 Superstructure
Finalization Task Force
{revision 0.6970}

to the

Platform Technical Committee

of the

Object Management Group

{18 2 MayApril 2004}


Document Number: {enter this doc’s No.}

Accompanied by: {number(s) of
revised spec, etc}


Table of Contents

Insert ToC only in the final version since the ToC feature seems to be interfering with the change-tracking feature of Word. We need the change bars for regular work to know what has changed since the previous issue of the draft report.



Summary of UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF Activities

Formation


  • Chartered By: Platform Technology Committee

  • On: June 6, 2003 in Paris, France

  • Comments Due Date: November 7, 2003 (revised from Sept. 8, 2003 at Boston meeting)

  • Report Due Date: April 30, 2004


Revision / Finalization Task Force Membership


Member

Organization

Status

BAST, Wim

Compuware Corporation




BOCK, Conrad

NIST




BOGER, Marco

Gentleware AG




DESFRAY, Philippe

Softeam




FRANK, Karl

Borland Software Corporation




GERARD, Sebastien

CEA-List




GERY, Eran

ILogix




KOBRYN, Cris

Telelogic AB




KOETHE, Manfred

88solutions




MAISONNEUVE, Julien

Alcatel




MANSUROV, Nikolai

KLOCwork Inc.




MELLOR, Steve

Project Technology




MILLER, Joaquin

X-Change Technologies Group, LLC




MIYAZAKI, Hiroshi

Fujitsu




MOORE, Alan

Artisan Software Tools




MUKERJI, Jishnu

Hewlett-Packard




ODELL, Jim

Kabira technologies, Inc.




RAMACKERS, Guus

Oracle

Co-chair

RIVETT, Pete

Adaptive Ltd.




RIOUX, Laurent

THALES




SELIC, Bran

International Business Machines

Co-chair

TARLANO, Anthony

DoCoMo Communication Laboratories Europe GmbH




TOLBERT, Doug

Unisys




VARVERIS, Lou

Popkin Software




WEIGERT, Thomas

Motorola




WILKIE, Ian

Kennedy Carter



Initial Issues from Architecture Board Review:


  1. The nature and meaning of compliance needs to be clarified and made more precise (e.g., what does ‘partial’ compliance mean?)

  2. The issue of consistency with the Infrastructure specification needs to be addressed (e.g., in case of discrepancies, which is the definitive source? Differences were noted between the two specs where they should have been identical (e.g., in the definition of profiles).)

  3. There is no conformance point defined for Profiles.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   120


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка